The Right Scarfie Profile wrote:Apologies for reviving this thread for the umpteenth time
you just want to eclipse the "straight to hell" thread.
Elect The Modernist! wrote:take5_d_shorterer wrote:1) The first is that this is something that Jim Woodring mentioned in an interview from the early 1990s in which he was suggesting that cartoons are a more difficult art form to work within because there were fewer tools available for the cartoonist to use to manipulate an audience. I agree. The examples he came up with for movies were a) put a hot chick or b) a sad kid on the the screen, add the appropriate soundtrack, swell accordingly, and voila, instant hard-on or instant sentimentality.
Well it's certainly true that cartoons are a far more limited artform in terms of form and expression and in that sense it is more difficult to produce something affecting. At the same time that's why cartoons seldom transcend their own limitations. They are very much a lesser artform in the wider scheme of things.
take5_d_shorterer wrote:No. Everything that you said above could be said about the sonnet form compared to, let's say, plays. Yes, the form of a sonnet is much more restrictive, but this does not give us an upper bound on what the expressive power of sonnets is.
Cartoons are impoverished not because of the limitations of the form itself but because of the limitations of its audience.